Guy Chapman aka JzG wrote:
I shouldn't think there's anything so inherently wrong with an encyclopedia having up-to-date coverage to merit such a rule.
It's not about a problem with being up-to-date, it's about lacking the perspective which time provides.
That's the rationale behind the {{current event}} header---to let readers know that information is not settled, and may change rapidly. I consider that quite a bit better than not having the information at *all*.
Plus, one year is a pretty arbitrary timeframe. For some things, like the Cold War, you could argue that we really need another 50 years to have the proper back-looking perspective. But we go ahead and write the best article we can now, and then revise it again later as new information and scholarship comes out.
-Mark